ORDER H.L. Capoor, J. - Ajit Singh has preferred this application in revision against the order, dated 20-3-11971 of Sri B.K. Misra, 1st Addl. Sessions udge, Kumaun, allowing the appeal; in part and maintaining the conviction of the Applicant u/s 9 of the U.P. (Regulation of Building Operations) Act, 1918, hereinafter called the Act, but reducing his sentence of fine from Rs. 500/- its awarded by the learned Magistrate, to Rs. 250/-. 2. It appears that Sri Bharadwaj (P.W. 1), Overseer Regulated Area, along with his peon Bhagwat Singh (P.W. 2) while on inspection, found the Applicant constructing house over Khasra plot No. 465 in the abadi of Kichha, which area is Covered within the operation of this Act. A site plan (Ex. Ka 2) was prepared by Sri Bharadwaj and a report (Ex. Ka-3) was submitted by him. Thereafter the Prescribed Authority gave the sanction for the prosecution of the Applicant. The complaint was then lodged. 3. The Applicant denied to have committed any offence. His defence was that his house was 14-15 years old and that he was not constructing a new house but was only making repairs to the old house already existing. Two witnesses, namely, Bachan Singh and Harcharan Lal, were examined in support of the defence. 4. The courts below after considering the evidence on record and placing reliance upon the statements of the witnesses examined I on behalf of the prosecution and disbelieving the defence witnesses, arrived it the finding that the Applicant had constructed a new house without the prior sanction of the Prescribed Authority, thereby having committed an offence u/s 9 of the Act. The learned Magistrate accordingly convicted and sentenced the Applicant to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. The conviction was upheld by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, but the sentence of fine was reduced to Rs. 250/- from Rs. 500/-. 5. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant has mainly urged one point before me that admittedly the sanction for the prosecution of the Applicant was given in this case by the Addl. D.M. and not by the D.M., with the result that the sanation was ineffective and could not be said to be a legal one. In support of his contention he has relied upon the case, Thanjam v. Union Territory Manipur AIR 1959 Man 16. This reported case was u/s 19(f) Arms Act. D.M. and not by the D.M., with the result that the sanation was ineffective and could not be said to be a legal one. In support of his contention he has relied upon the case, Thanjam v. Union Territory Manipur AIR 1959 Man 16. This reported case was u/s 19(f) Arms Act. It was held by the learned Judicial Commissioner that where the notification u/s 10(2) Code of Criminal Procedure shows that the sanctioning Addl. D.M. was invested with the powers of the D.M. only under the Code of Criminal Procedure and not under any other law he cannot exercise the powers of a D.M. u/s 29 of the Indian Arms Act and the sanction Govt. by him must be ignored, with the result that the whole trial is thereby rendered illegal and neither the conviction nor the sentence can be maintained. 6. Section 10(2) Code of Criminal Procedure makes it clear that the State Govt. may appoint airy, magistrate of the first class to bean Addl. District Magistrate and such Addl. District Magistrate shall have all or any of the powers of the District Magistrate under this Code (or under any other law for the time being in force) as the State Govt. may direct. The language of the said section makes it absolutely clear that the appointment of any Addl. District Magistrate, giving him the powers of a District Magistrate, would be (applicable only under the Code, unless the State Govt. may direct that power of a District Magistrate be exercised by the Addl. District Magistrate under any other law for the time being in force. In the instant case before me no notification of the Govt. could be shown whereby the powers of a District Magistrate were conferred upon the Addl. District Magistrate to be exercised by him relating to any other law for the time being in force and particularly the Act. In there circumstances, the powers given to ether Addl. District Magistrate could not be exercised by him in respect of the Act in the absence of any notification being shown. Hence the sanction admittedly granted for the prosecution of the Applicant in this case by the Addl. District Magistrate could not be said to be a valid one and its result would be that the whole trial would be rendered illegal and the conviction or the sentence of the Applicant could not be maintained. Hence the sanction admittedly granted for the prosecution of the Applicant in this case by the Addl. District Magistrate could not be said to be a valid one and its result would be that the whole trial would be rendered illegal and the conviction or the sentence of the Applicant could not be maintained. 7. It is, however, made clear that this Court may not be understood to have expressed any opinion with regard to the merits of the case so that the Applicant may be said to be prejudiced in any manner. It would, however, be open to the authorities concerned to proceed with the case if they like after proper sanction being obtained. 8. In the result, the application in revision is allowed and the conviction and sentence of the Applicant are set aside. Fine, if paid by him, shall be refunded.